All kinds of crazy here...

Post Reply New Topic

(CNN) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite President Bush's low approval ratings, people will soon "start to thank this president for what he's done."

"So we can sit here and talk about the long record, but what I would say to you is that this president has faced tougher circumstances than perhaps at any time since the end of World War II, and he has delivered policies that are going to stand the test of time," Rice said in an interview that aired on CBS' "Sunday Morning."

The secretary of state brushed off reports that suggest the United States' image is suffering abroad. She praised the administration's ability to change the conversation in the Middle East.

"This isn't a popularity contest. I'm sorry, it isn't. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans' interests and values in the long run -- not for today's headlines, but for history's judgment," she said.

"And I am quite certain that when the final chapters are written and it's clear that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is gone in favor of an Iraq that is favorable to the future of the Middle East; when the history is written of a U.S.-China relationship that is better than it's ever been; an India relationship that is deeper and better than it's ever been; a relationship with Brazil and other countries of the left of Latin America, better than it's ever been ...

"When one looks at what we've been able to do in terms of changing the conversation in the Middle East about democracy and values, this administration will be judged well, and I'll wait for history's judgment and not today's headlines."

Asked by CBS' Rita Braver why some former diplomats say Americans are disliked around the world, Rice said that's "just not true."

"I know what U.S. policy has achieved. And so I don't know what diplomats you're talking to, but look at the record," she said.

Rice said she wasn't bothered by criticism about her or the administration's polices, saying if a person in her business is not being criticized, "you're not doing something right."

"I'm here to make tough choices, and this president is here to make tough choices, and we have. And yes, I -- there are some things that I would do very differently if I had it to do over again. You don't have that luxury. You have to make the choices and take the positions that you do at the time," she said.

Asked about historians who say Bush is one of the worst presidents, Rice said those "aren't very good historians."

"If you're making historical judgments before an administration is already out -- even out of office, and if you're trying to make historical judgments when the nature of the Middle East is still to be determined, and when one cannot yet judge the effects of decisions that this President has taken on what the Middle East will become -- I mean, for goodness' sakes, good historians are still writing books about George Washington. Good historians are certainly still writing books about Harry Truman," she said.

Rice, 54, said she has enjoyed working in the Bush administration during the last eight years, first as national security adviser, then as secretary of state.

"There is no greater honor than to serve this country," she said, adding that there is also no greater challenge.

Rice said when the new administration takes over, she plans to return to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and write two books -- one on foreign policy and one about her parents.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/28/ ... index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i know i know..gotta support the party and all that crap but will be thanking bush?? thanking that worthless piece of excrement? anyone got a rubber room ready for this mentally disturbed person?

Well, god forbid someone disagree with you on this - if they do they'll impugning their own dignity, you say as much right off the top.

IMO hatred of the administration - 99% emotion caused by...get ready for this......emotion. Deliberate imperspective, politically driven. I doubt we'll have a president this hated until the next time there's a Republican who's victory is challenged and even after three recounts he still somehow manages to steal the election - not once, but twice. IMO that's what it is, that's where it started, its all 2000 Gore v. Bush and ever since then its just completely flown off the wheel logically.

This is also why, I agree with her - people may have some amount of logical lucidity looking back 30 or 40 years, because it'll be looking at through the lens of that presidents actions - both positive and negative - the conspiracy theories and haters won't really make the textbooks so much as much as a footnote to the extent of "Wow, its hard to say how it happened but people just came unhinged - retrospectively its bizarre but, it happened"; that much, far more likely, will be studied by social psychologists and likely will just reflect strangely on the people rather than on the guy himself.

how about instead of wasting characters yammering on about nothing, how about you actually provide something that's actually of value? all you've stated was that you believe everyone who disagrees with bush is overreacting to the 2000 election. (and hey, i said that in less words!)

and if you really believe that the 2000 election and partisan fighting is the only reason for bush to be viewed so negatively, you need to get out from under your rock or stop voting and spare the rest of us your ineptitude when it comes to critically evaluating a political situation.


and know what? i'm gonna serve you up a rainbow pitch too!! !(aren't i generous?) a nice easy floater that goes exactly where you want the conversation to go:

the recount was halted before a final count could be made and bush was declared the victor by the supreme court. not to mention all the questionable acts and circumstances that were going on during and before the election. and then again, more questionable circumstances in 2004 with ohio.


but seriously...if you think that's the only reason to hate bush, you need to do a LOT of research. maybe into his various spending bills he passed almost immediately after getting into office. or maybe the complete failure of iraq which obviously was a result of bush's myopic view of iraq as a threat when there was little more than specious evidence at best (which is why the rest of the world wasn't impressed by colon powell's presentation). or how about his education programs which did more to close down schools and hurt education than they did to help (i witnessed this firsthand as i was still in school when bush first took office and his measures were being implemented nationally). there's also this whole bout of garbage that has gone on recently with the bailouts which are obviously little more than corporatist welfare. there's the faith based initiatives which put into effect by presidential decree (king george II??wtf?) and very obviously violates the first amendment (how could it not? there's a reason why government stays separate...because it's the only way to ensure all religions are treated equally).

not to mention genius moves like calling his war on terror a crusade. claiming to be against nuclear proliferation but one of his first acts was to kill the russian nuclear disarmament program that was actually controlling and getting rid of nuclear materials....which since the death of that program have been making their way around the world.

let's not forget the genius move of making an axis of evil that included NONE of the countries responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

also let's not forget the few million times that bush associated the 9/11 attacks to saddam hussein and iraq. going so far as to even say they had training grounds there with a segment of a jet.



so yeah...what's this worthless sack of excrement done?

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp1949103.html

This one in particular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qlJqR4GmKw

Everyone who disagrees with him?



I think its probably the reason people are this wild with it. Otherwise, they've been horridly inarticulate at exposing the great corruption behind all of this; neither idea is particularly comforting.



I read both of these stories and I see a lot of conjecture. Some were valid with 2000, 2004 and Ohio gets bizarre and I really can't find two sides of the story online. On the other hand though, I'm really supposed to believe that if Ohio was as rampant as they say it was that the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post just didn't smell a story? Its all still a bit manic.



He spent like a centrist dem, no joke.



A certain piece of work - Saddam - was awarding the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, was shooting at our plains over the parallels, had intelligence agencies all over the region affirming to the CIA that he had WMD's - to where our argument with the UN wasn't whether he had them but rather it was worth anyone's while. The really fun part was finding that the three or four countries who were really obstinant about us going in were the same who were still trading with them under embargo, even selling military supplies right up until the time we went in, and yes - we're loaded with the oil for food vouchers. Saddam was trying to buy the UN with that, was hoping to get the weapons inspectors off of his back and - if he had destroyed his cash in the mid 90's was aiming to reconstitute what he had.



Yes, squishy conservatism on the domestic issues.



Which has me banging my head on the wall. Never said I liked everything or even said he was great, he just dealt with a pretty big ball of scat and that I think Rice is correct in saying that he'll be given credit where its due - I don't think the auto bailout is one of those, I could be wrong.



Separation of church and state is there as not to institute a national religion - not to purge it from the public sphere or refuse charitable networks funds; that's a newer take.



Didn't he sign a treaty with Putin in 2002 to cut their nuclear stocks by 2/3 by 2012?



Probably because these were, in the case of the middle-eastern countries, despots who dealt with the right people, had the weapons programs, or at the very least had base camps for multinational organizations of the like.

So why didn't we attack Mecca or the Saudi peninsula after we found that 20 of the hijackers were Saudi's? I think that's almost self-explanatory, its a war on terror not the whole of Islam.



Aside from the Barney Frank and Chris Dodd time bomb he dealt with some rather heavy-handed economic disasters early in his first term, kept the economy from afloat, kept us from getting hit again, dealt with two major wars, crushed Al Qaeda's ability to attack as an organization, caused Libya to give up its weapons program, and went straight against what seemed like prevailing popular opinion to get things done when he had to (the beauty of Gore and Kerry - we never got to see how bad they would have flubbed it).


Here's something on the side though, if you do have a case to make to this kind of end - probably better to pick apart analytically in the first place than telling people they're crazy?